This is an interesting thread. I often wonder to what extent I was controlled and to what extent I was doing things out of free will. I'm sure a lot more research could be done on this subject. Although I think the term "brainwashing" is too harsh and not very descriptive, thought control does exist. For example, have you ever heard these phrases?:
You shouldn't feel that way.
That's not correct thinking.
We should avoid independent thinking.
That's not the right attitude to have.
I'm sure you can think of better worded or clearer examples. The point is that often we are told straight out what to think or feel. One Bethel elder shared an article with me that said that you can't have a feeling without first having a thought. The idea is that if you are feeling discouraged, for example, then your thinking needs "re-adjusting." Nevermind that feeling discouraged when you are under a very busy schedule, working hard, living in poverty (or at least poorly), and getting little in return is perfectly natural. The assumption is that you shouldn't feel discouraged (because it's a "negative" emotion) and thus your thinking is wrong. So, you change your perceptions and tell yourself that you are really well off. Once you believe that, you begin to feel contented and joyful about your situation.
Of course, there are other forms of control too:
your environment (ie, seperate from the world, esp at bethel)
peer pressure
conditioning (carrots/sticks based on your behavior)
Personally, I think the last one is one of the most effective. To get the attention that comes with little rewards like a part on the service meeting, a responsibility at bethel or in the congregation, recognition from a CO, or a pat on the back we would conform ourselves to meet their expectations. A bethelite that sat at Milton Henschel's table each morning for breakfast told me that only when he wore a tie to the table would M. H. greet him. No tie, no greeting. That's a very small thing, but it's a great example of the kind of conditioning that goes on.
Next, manipulative wording in the literature.
I bet a great study could be done of manipulation techniques employed in WT literature. The ones I'm aware of are code words, logical fallacies, and using questions deceptively. I think they use the last one masterfully. Instead of asking "Why serve God?," they ask "What Does God Require of Us?." Instead of "Should we be obey the org.?," they ask, "How does Loyalty to the Brotherhood Show our Loyalty to God.?" Also, they constantly ask us to "show" or "demonstrate" something, whether it is love, loyalty, kindness, or whatever. It is not enought to have an emotion, they say, we must show it.
Finally, meetings to indoctrinate
If you think spending a couple of hours a week at meetings where a carefully worded article is studied in a carefully controlled program, in which you are asked questions to which you are supposed to respond by parroting the information in the literature, and that that is not designed to control your thinking, then think again! The facts that questions are not permitted from the audience, that there is no free discussion time, that "wrong" answers are quickly corrected, that multiple right answers are not allowed, that the routine of it is invariable, that the elevation of the stage, the use of a podium, the often harsh lighting of a KH, the use of several ushers, the fact that elders sit in strategic places in the KH (ie, in front, or next to the aisle, or standing in the back), the dress code, the insistence on punctuality, the use of hand raising (rather than freely shouting answers out) and waiting to be called, lots of time reading text that could have been read at home, the use of only one Bible translation, the forbiddence of using printouts of Bible scriptures because they don't look like real Bibles, speakers trained to speak in a restrained, smooth cadence (through the TMS), literature that has been proofread so many times to avoid a single typo, mechanical error, or grammatical error, so that it seems carefully researched and authoritative, and the use of literature from only one source which is deemed virtually infallible show that this is not an academic study, but a propaganda system.
So, that's my take. I'm curious to see what everyone else thinks. Do you agree/disagree, have better examples, different ideas, etc?
James
